Temple Land Tax?

[thesometimesaint]

Europeans need to stop whining about the 30 Years War already.  It's been over for nearly 400 years already.  Time to re-embrace one's own culture, religion and history as a thing of beauty and pride.

 

Agreed.

[thesometimesaint]

The following is from the IRS document ErayE linked:

 

A church or religious organization will be regarded as attempting to influence legislation ... if the organization advocates the adoption or rejection of legislation. (IRS Publication 1828 "Tax guide for Churches and Religious Organizations")

 

SEE 501©3 organizations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501%28c%29_organization

[ERayR]

What does not make sense ErayE is that you will not support your "moral issue" assertion from post 104. You keep trying to divert attention away from your statement. Your avoidance must necessarily be an acknowledgment on your part that your assertion was an error; or, alternatively, it was your opinion that you want everyone to regard as a fact. So was it an error or just your learned opinion that is not explicitly found current law or IRS regulation? I am willing to accept the opinion option, are you willing to admit it is your opinion? Or will you show the IRS distinguishes "moral issues" from other lobbying?

 

What really does not make sense is you do not seem to understand that is what religious leaders do: Expound on MORAL ISSUES.  They can do this all day long every day including Sundays and it does not jeopardize their tax exempt status.  They can even lobby for legislation as long as it does not reach the level of being a substantial part of their resources. 

Edited September 11, 2013 by ERayR

[USU78]

I wonder what would be the moral thing for a Church to do if it's Shiz or, say, Kishkumen on the ballot.

[foster]

What really does not make sense is you do not seem to understand that is what religious leaders do: Expound on MORAL ISSUES.  They can do this all day long every day including Sundays and it does not jeopardize their tax exempt status.  They can even lobby for legislation as long as it does not reach a level of substantial resources. 

 

"Expound on MORAL ISSUES", was not what you were responding to post 104.   You responded directly to the statement from Bikemikey and my counter statement,  that it would not be problematic for a Church to direct it members how to vote. 

Edited September 11, 2013 by foster

[foster]

SEE 501©3 organizations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501%28c%29_organization

 

Is the official IRS publication not a good source?

Edited September 11, 2013 by foster

[ERayR]

"Expound on MORAL ISSUES", was not what you were responding to post 104.   You responded directly to the statement from Bikemikey and my counter statement,  that it would not be problematic for a Church to direct it members how to vote. 

 

You have somewhat clarified your position, though reluctantly;  thank you for the clarification even if it was reluctant.

 

My position has not changed.  It would not be problematic for church leader to tell his congregation how he thinks they should vote on moral issues.  He could even mount a lobby effort about the moral issue as long as he didn't use a substantial part of church resources for the effort. 

[thesometimesaint]

Is the official IRS publication not a good source?

 

Nothing wrong with them. However your interpretation of them is off.

[foster]

My position has not changed.  It would not be problematic for church leader to tell his congregation how he thinks they should vote on moral issues.  He could even mount a lobby effort about the moral issue as long as he didn't use a substantial part of church resources for the effort. 

 

Again that is not what you responded too in post 104.

 

ERayE, is the following a true statement from page 6 of the document you linked?

 

A church or religious organization will be regarded as attempting to influence legislation ... if the organization advocates the adoption or rejection of legislation. (IRS Publication 1828 "Tax guide for Churches and Religious Organizations")

Edited September 11, 2013 by foster

[foster]

Nothing wrong with them. However your interpretation of them is off.

 

CFR. How is my interpretation of a direct quote of an Official IRS publication "off".  Where have I made the error? 

 

Are you saying a Church or a Church leader speaking as on behalf of and directly for his Church (not his personal opinion which was prefaced with a disclaimer of his personal opinion not speaking on behalf of his Church), has a blank check to tell people how to vote?

Are you saying a Church has complete immunity to engage in partisan politics and can expend unlimited amounts of non-PAC funds on lobbying for or against legislation?

 

If you answer "Yes" to either please consider this advanced notice of a CFR.

Edited September 11, 2013 by foster

[ERayR]

Again that is not what you responded too in post 104.

 

Post #104

foster, on 09 Sept 2013 - 8:06 PM, said:

" Could our church encourage all members to vote a certain way from the pulpit (which they currently do not)? Sure. It would not be a problem."

That would be a problem.

 

Answer to Fosters question: No not a problem as long as they are talking moral issues and not candidates.

 

 

Now What is wrong with that reply and what do you think I have changed?

Edited September 11, 2013 by ERayR

[foster]

Post #104

foster, on 09 Sept 2013 - 8:06 PM, said:

 

Answer to Fosters question: No not a problem as long as they are talking moral issues and not candidates.

 

 

Now What is wrong with that reply and what do you think I have changed?

 

CFR again, where is the "moral issues" exception you suggest. 

 

If a Church advocates for or against legislation does IRS publication 1828 state that Church will be regarded as "attempting to influence legislation" (excluding from the present analysis substantial part and expenditure tests).

 

Does a Church (Church leader*) have complete immunity from tax-exempt revocation for speaking for or against the adoption of legislation?

 

*who is speaking on behalf of his Church

[ERayR]

CFR again, where is the "moral issues" exception you suggest. 

 

If a Church advocates for or against legislation does IRS publication 1828 state that Church will be regarded as "attempting to influence legislation" (excluding from the present analysis substantial part and expenditure tests).

 

Does a Church (Church leader*) have complete immunity from tax-exempt revocation for speaking for or against the adoption of legislation?

 

*who is speaking on behalf of his Church

 

Go back and read IRS pub until you comprehend.  Its there I promise. 

[foster]

Your pet hypotheses - asserted as a statement of fact - does not satisfy the requirements of the CFR. And I like how you avoided answering questions in which you would have to admit I am correct. You can not specifically identify the moral issue blank check you assert, it is just your pet hypotheses (which is shared by others) but you are apparently to stubborn to admit such. It is a good hypotheses though.

Edited September 11, 2013 by foster

[thesometimesaint]

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf

 

All IRC section 501©(3) organizations, including church

-

es and religious organizations, must abide by certain rules:

■

their net earnings may not inure to any private

shareholder or individual,

■

they must not provide a substantial benefit to private

interests,

■

they must not devote a substantial part of their

activities to attempting to influence legislation,

■

they must not participate in, or intervene in, any

political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to)

any candidate for public office, and

■

the organization’s purposes and activities may not

be illegal or violate fundamental public policy

.

 

IOW unless the IRS can prove a certain church violated the strictures on politics, they are guanteed the right to preach whatever they want.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Go back and read IRS pub until you comprehend.  Its there I promise. 

I only respond because well..... It might help. You are wasting your time here.

[ERayR]

I only respond because well..... It might help. You are wasting your time here.

 

Thanks.  I had come to that conclusion a couple of posts ago.  However, I am a bit persistent. 

[ERayR]

Your pet hypotheses - asserted as a statement of fact - does not satisfy the requirements of the CFR. And I like how you avoided answering questions in which you would have to admit I am correct. You can not specifically identify the moral issue blank check you assert, it is just your pet hypotheses (which is shared by others) but you are apparently to stubborn to admit such. It is a good hypotheses though.

 

 

Do you even understand what a CFR is?

[foster]

Do you understand the difference between hypotheses and actual fact? Do you understand the difference between asserting a hypotheses as fact and presenting fact as fact?

Are still unwilling to admit your hypotheses asserted as fact is only your opinion; learned as it may be?

Let's see if we can agree on somethings:

• As a member of a church I am free to advocate for, or against any law, or proposed law, that I want. 
• Only as an official representative of a church are my actions restricted in partisan politics and lobbying. 
• Many make that mistake that a religious citizen as a citizen can be partisan and lobby, but a citizen who is acting as a Agent for a tax-exempt Church or a tax-exempt Church are also without restriction in partisan politics and lobbying. 
• The "moral issue" exception is just a hypotheses and would need to established by legislative branch, Supreme Court case law, or IRS rule.

 

Edited September 11, 2013 by foster

[Alan]

Depends on the country. My understanding is that in the uk because the public is not allowed, taxes are paid on temples but not churches which are open to the public.

In the us that distinction hasn't been made yet. Wouldn't be surprised if it eventually went that way especially since there are no direct benefits of the temple for society save for correlation with stronger marriages, larger families and individuals who volunteer and donate more....but those activities are not done in the temple itself so those who think these individuals would act that way no matter what might see it more financially prudent to tax.

 

This is correct.

Here in the UK religious buildings must be open to all to qualify for tax exemption. There must be no restriction on anyone being able to enter and worship.

This is not the case with LDS temples but is, of course, the case with chapels. Therefore, the church pays tax on the Preston temple for example, but not on the adjacent stake centre.

 

Incidently, the non-public nature of temples is also the reason why a temple wedding ceremony is not considered legally valid in the UK.

Edited September 12, 2013 by Alan

[thesometimesaint]

Alan:

 

As I understand it every couple must be married in a "civil" marriage first, and then can have any private ceremony they want. Is that correct?